Delhi High Court granted an interim relief to the petitioner i.e., an American citizen of Indian Origin by directing Indian Kanoon to block the judgement of his acquittal under NDPS Act from being accessed by using search engines such as Google/ vLex. The order is till the next day of hearing, which is August 20.
The Petitioner travelled to India in 2009 to India, a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was lodged against the petitioner. A judgement dated 30th April, 2011 the trial court had acquitted him of all the charges. An appeal was filed challenging this order of the trial court, and judgment dated January 29, 2013, a Single Judge of the Court upheld his acquittal in titled Custom v. Jorawar Singh Mundy.
The petitioner gone back to the United States for studying of Law and he realised despite of having a good academic record he is facing a huge disadvantage due to the fact that the judgement rendered by the court was available on google search engine to any potential employer who wanted to conduct his background verification before employing him.
The petitioner was unable to get any employment to his expectation and the reason for the same, according to him, is the availability of this judgement online.
The petitioner then issued a legal notice to Respondents i.e., Google India Private Ltd., Google LLC, Indian Kanoon and vLex.in. Respondents i.e., vLex.in is stated to have removed the said judgment, however, the other platforms have not yet removed the same.
The petitioner moved the High Court invoking “Right to privacy”.
A writ petition was filled seeking directions for the removal of the said judgement from all respective platforms, recognising the Right to Privacy of the Petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ISSUES
The issues that the learned bench took into considerations were
1. Weather a court order can be removed from online platform?
2. Examination of the Right to privacy of the petitioner under Article 21 of the constitution?
3. Examining of the Right to information of the public and maintenance of transparency in judicial records?
JUDGEMENT
The above issue requires examination of two rights – Right to Privacy and Right to information of the public and Maintenance of Transperancy. Right to Privacy is well recognised in Supreme Court Constitutional bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC1 recognising Right to Privacy the court examined this issue while granting an interim order, this court held that the Plaintiffs personal and professional life has been hampered and further damage is likely to be caused if appropriate relief is not granted against the republication of these two articles. The original publisher having already agreed to pull down the same, this Court having directed that the same ought not to be republished, the Plaintiff, thus, has a right to ensure that the articles are not published on multiple electronic/digital platforms as that would create a permanent atmosphere of suspicion and animosity towards the Plaintiff and also severely prejudice his personal and professional life. The printouts of the articles from www.newsdogapp.com, which have been shown to the Court, leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that these are identical to the articles published on www.thequint.com, which have already been pulled down.
Accordingly, recognising the Plaintiff’s Right to privacy, of which the `Right to be forgotten’ and the `Right to be left alone’ are inherent aspects, it is directed that any republication of the content of the originally impugned articles dated 12th October 2018 and 31st October 2018, or any extracts/ or excerpts thereof, as also modified versions thereof, on any print or digital/electronic platform shall stand restrained during the pendency of the present suit
The Plaintiff is permitted to communicate this order to any print or electronic platform including various search engines in order to ensure that the articles or any excerpts/search results thereof are not republished in any manner whatsoever. The Plaintiff is permitted to approach the grievance officers of the electronic platforms and portals to ensure immediate
The judgement given by the Orissa High Court in the case Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha decided on 23rd November, 2020 which examined the aspect and applicability of “Right to be forgotten” qua Right to Privacy, including the international law.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha Singh observed thus:
“It is the admitted position that the Petitioner was ultimately acquitted of the said charges in the case levelled against him. Owing to the irreparable prejudice which may be caused to the Petitioner, his social life and his career prospects, inspite of the Petitioner having ultimately been acquitted in the said case via the said judgment, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to some interim protection, while the legal issues are pending adjudication by this Court”.
The court ordered: Respondents are directed to remove the said judgement dated 29th January 2013, titled Custom v. Jorawar Singh Mundy from their search results. The court added “Respondent Indian Kanoon is directed to block the said judgement from being accessed by using search engines such as Google/Yahoo etc., till the next date of hearing”.
Through the course of the present judgement Delhi High Court established multiple important benchmarks by providing interim relief to the petitioner. A crucial step to examine Right to Privacy and Right to Information of the Public and Maintenance of Transparency. The judgement is considered to be landmark in the field of “Right to Forgotten”.
The Right to forgotten or the right to erasure, is the concept or an option available to an individual have the civil right to request that personal information be removed from the various internet searches under certain conditions. In order to effectively remove someone’s personal data, there must be a traceable mechanism for making sure that the data also removed from the backup storage media. This right asks organizations to remove individual personal data.
The terms data controller and data processor are clearly defined as they apply to GDPR. The data controller is the person or entity who is legally responsible for storing digital personal identifiable information. The data processor is the entity that holds or processes personal data, but does not exercise responsibility for or control over the personal data. In this context, a cloud provider is considered to be a data processor. The data processor cannot hold copies of data or make them available for other uses. The data controller, therefore, is responsible for deleting the personal data and ensuring it has been erased, as well as executing the operations but not for the decision process.
In India Right to forgotten is different from right to privacy. In right to privacy the information is not publicly known whereas, in Right to forgotten the information is publicly known.
Right to forgotten was introduced in the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation. Article 17 of the GDRP, commonly referred as Right to forgotten. According to Article 17 an individual can make request to a data controller for erase personal data without ‘undue delay’ and the controller shall have the obligation to erase the personal data without ‘undue delay’. The landmark case Delhi High Court has ordered removal of its own verdicts from various search engines in an important order on the “Right to be forgotten” and “Right to be left alone”. The case titled Jorawer Singh Mundy V. Union of India & Ors.
